House of Commons

Friday 8 July 1994

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[ Madam Speaker-- -- in the Chair ]

United Kingdom (Inequalities)

9.34 am

Ms Joyce Quin (Gateshead, East) : I beg to move,

That this House expresses concern at the growing inequalities between
richest and poorest in Britain today and draws attention to the recent
report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies entitled For Richer, For Poorer
: the Changing Distribution of Income in the United Kingdom 1961-1991' ;
expresses its belief that gross inequalities contribute to economic
inefficiency ; draws attention to the inequalities which particular groups
including the disabled experience ; believes that a whole range of measures
and policies are needed as well as a change of direction in existing
government policy if the problems of inequalities and lack of opportunities
are to be rectified ; and calls on the Government to introduce urgent
policies of a fiscal, economic, social and educational nature in order to
bring such a change in direction about.

Having been given the opportunity to introduce a motion of my choice, there
are two reasons why I decided to speak about inequalities in Britain, lack
of opportunities, and the huge and growing gap between richest and poorest
in our society.

First, recently, a number of excellent and telling studies on the subject
have been published. My motion refers to one of them--the report of the
Institute for Fiscal Studies entitled "For Richer, For Poorer", which
received considerable publicity and attention when it appeared a month ago.

My second reason is more fundamental and is rooted in my role as a Member
of Parliament. It relates to my experiences in my constituency in the area,
where I was born and grew up and which I have represented 15 years--first
in the European Parliament and, since 1987, in the House. Witnessing the
growth in inequality and poverty in my constituency is the more fundamental
reason for tabling my motion. I see more poverty and inequality today in my
constituency than I remember at any other period in my life. Unemployment
and poverty seem more deeply rooted now than at any time since the 1930s. I
am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members are profoundly attached to
their constituencies. That feeling can turn to anger and frustration if we
feel that the living and working conditions in our constituencies, or in
the country as a whole, are worsening.

Lady Olga Maitland (Sutton and Cheam) : Perhaps the hon. Lady could
set some parameters. What is her benchmark of poverty today, bearing in
mind that living standards have increased substantially over the past 10
years ?

Ms Quin : I have only just begun my speech, and I will answer that
point later.

When one sees, as I do, constituents who are constantly finding it
difficult to make ends meet, for whom the day-to-day business of living is
financially difficult and who are never able to afford treats or extras,
that is close

Column 564

to poverty. The relentless grind that many
people have experienced probably since the first recession in the early
1980s is difficult for them to tolerate. If, after I have developed my
argument, the hon. Lady wants to intervene again, I shall be happy to allow
her to do so.

The facts of the growth of inequality in Britain cannot be disputed. The
Institute for Fiscal Studies report revealed that poverty has trebled
during the years of office of this Government. It is described as a
widening of the gap between rich and poor which is unprecedented in modern
times. Inequality in the distribution of incomes increased dramatically
during the 1980s, having previously fluctuated over only a small range
since the early 1960s. During the past 15 years, the richest 10 per cent.
became almost twice as well off. The number of people in Britain with an
income below half the national average more than trebled, to 11.4 million--
one in five of the population. That occurred even though between 1961 and
1967 that category fell numerically and there was a drop in inequality in
that particular era.

Perhaps not unexpectedly, there has been a growth in poverty among those
out of work, especially among the long-term unemployed. When people are
dependent on benefits which are then squeezed, their position becomes even
more difficult. However, what has been most staggering during the 1980s has
been the growth in poverty among those in employment. Many of us are deeply
worried about that phenomenon.

The problem of low pay is well documented by various organisations with a
remit to study the matter, such as the Low Pay Unit and the National
Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. I commend their work. As we know,
the global figures translate into local examples. Over the past two or
three years, I have had contact with my local jobcentres to see what sort
of jobs were available. What I discovered was quite alarming. For example,
a year ago there was an advertisement for a security guard on a 70-hour
week at a rate of £1.85 per hour. What sort of wage is that for anyone
to keep himself on, let alone a family ? The job of a security guard is
often difficult, if not downright dangerous. I am not sure how many hon.
Members would want to do such a job for such long hours and for such little
pay.

Of course, it is not just the level of pay that is at stake ; it is the
difficulty that such people then have in trying to contribute towards a
better future for themselves. I do not know how people in such employment
can find the money to pay into a personal pension scheme. The problem is
that not only is someone working for low pay here and now, but he has
little financial security to look forward to in the years ahead. That
greatly worries many of us. Another job advertisement in the same batch a
year ago was for an assistant hairdresser--a 39-hour week for £35,
which is less than £1 per hour. This week, I took the opportunity to
find out from the same jobcentre to see the current jobs on display and it
did not appear to me that matters had improved. One of the advertisements,
again for a security guard--although without experience--quoted a wage of
£1.40 per hour. It was for full-time hours with night shifts to be
arranged. Another advertisement for a security guard, on the slightly
better rate of pay of £2.30 per hour, said that the guard would have
to work throughout the north-east and that the duties included patrolling,
gatehouse duties and retail shops. It said that the preferred age was 30-
plus. Many of us do not like age discrimination in job advertisements.

Column 565

Someone over 30 would be a mature worker,
yet all that was being offered was £2.30 an hour. Such wage rates are
unacceptably low, do not give people any job security and cannot be
defended. I hope that they will not be defended by Conservative Members.

Those local examples are backed-up by the work of organisations such as
NACAB, which has produced a series of brilliant reports over the past three
years describing the problems of low pay and insecurity in employment. One
report entitled "Hard Labour" was published in 1990 ; another entitled "Not
in Labour" deals with the discrimination experienced by pregnant women in
employment ; and there is another, more general, report on unequal
opportunities. All those reports would make excellent reading for hon.
Members. The "Hard Labour" report gives examples of various cases that have
come to the attention of bureaux throughout the country. I shall cite two
of them. The first is from a bureau in Yorkshire, which had a client who
worked in a video shop from 10 am to 8 pm with no meal breaks. That
contravenes the Shops Act 1950, but the woman was too scared to do anything
about it in case she lost her job. That is a real threat, especially as the
rules governing unfair dismissal are very much loaded against the employee
who feels that he has been unfairly dismissed.

The second case comes from a bureau in Dorset. A supervisor in an amusement
arcade was continuously on duty, without an assistant, for a shift of 13
hours. Not surprisingly, during that time he needed to use the toilet.
While he was away a window was broken and his employer made a deduction of
£40 from his wages, probably in contravention of the Wages Act 1986.
When the NACAB client challenged the deduction, he was dismissed without
notice.

It might seem incredible that those examples can be found in a civilised
country, but they are really only the tip of the iceberg in that NACAB
report. There have been some changes to employment protection since the
report was published--I shall refer to those later--but nevertheless we
know full well that the problems of low pay and sometimes appalling working
conditions still very much exist, as is shown by the advertisements in my
local jobcentre this week. People on benefits and out of employment have
also felt the pinch during the past 15 years. Pensioners, especially those
who are entirely dependent on the state pension, have lost out because of
the breaking of the link between pensions on the one hand and prices and
incomes on the other-- [Interruption.] Conservative Members are
expressing disagreement, but it has been calculated that the Exchequer
saved £5 billion from the breaking of that link.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls (Teignbridge) : For the sake of accuracy, will
the hon. Lady remind the House that, although it was a Conservative
Government who broke the legal link between the two factors, it was the
Labour Government who found themselves unable to honour their link ? Is it
not more honest to have a system that we can live up to and pay for rather
than introducing a link to push pensions up and then having to break it ?
If the hon. Lady doubts the accuracy of my remarks, she will find that they
are well attested.

Column 566

Ms Quin : The purpose of my motion is to show that inequality in
Britain has widened dramatically over the past 15 years. The Government sat
back and allowed that to happen. I do not believe that a Labour Government
would have presided over a growth in inequality such as there has been over
the past 15 years.

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) has
to confront many articulate pensioner groups who know very well the records
of both the last Labour Government and this Government and who feel that
they have lost out dramatically over the past 15 years.

Mr. Gary Streeter (Plymouth, Sutton) : Does the hon. Lady think that
pensioners were better off in the late 1970s when inflation was running at
25 or 26 per cent. and the value of their savings plummeted, which meant
that many of them were left in abject poverty ?

Ms Quin : Given the overall situation at the time, I think that
pensioners were better off. The pensioners to whom I speak strongly confirm
my impression.

Conservative Members are simply unwilling to face reality. I do not claim
that all previous Governments' record on equality was excellent, but the
growth in inequality has been flagrant in the past 15 years and it seems to
have been pursued as a deliberate act of policy. In many ways, people face
a kind of nightmarish board game in their personal lives. A single,
unemployed person might go three places forward on discovering that his
local council has, after all, found him accommodation, but might go back
four places when the Department of Social Security says that it cannot lend
him any money for the basics that would enable him to become established in
that accommodation. An old person might go forward three places on
discovering that he is eligible for a bus pass and can travel around, but
back four places because he is too frightened to go out. A parent might go
three places forward on discovering that he has been granted access to his
child at weekends, but back four places when he discovers that he simply
cannot afford to see his child. That is particularly topical following our
moving debates on the Child Support Agency and its effects.

Many young people find it difficult to enter full-time education. They
might go three places forward when they are given a place on an education
course, but back four places when they learn that no grant is available,
that they will have to take out loans because of their straitened financial
circumstances or that they will not have access to housing benefit. They
may go back even further if they believe that a life of debt faces them,
particularly as employment opportunities are so limited for many students.

The growth in inequalities in Britain has not been reflected in other
European countries. The extent of the growth of inequality in Britain is
well out of line with other countries. Earlier this year, an interesting
article by Andrew Glyn of Corpus Christi college, Oxford appeared in The
Guardian . It said that the years of Conservative Government in Britain had
seen an increase in inequality which is striking not only in itself but
which seems larger than in any other European country. He supported his
argument with an interesting table comparing United Kingdom and European
inequality in employment rates, unemployment rates, unearned to earned
income change, the ratio of women's pay to men's pay--the gap is

Column 567

significant and larger than the European
average--the definition of poverty according to Council of Europe standards
and how that works out in terms of the percentage of the population, the
top income tax rates and the changes in top income tax rates and in the
share of the top 20 per cent. of incomes in the past 15 years.

Lady Olga Maitland : The suggestion that gross inequality exists in
Britain compared with the rest of the European Community is extraordinary.
Does the hon. Lady accept that this country has more people in jobs than
any other European country ?

Ms Quin : As part of my motion is about the poverty of people in
employment, the hon. Lady's intervention hardly undermines my argument. Our
unemployment rate between 1979 and today compares unfavourably with most
European countries. Some countries, such as Germany, have experienced
recession in recent years, but, none the less, in the past have had far
lower unemployment than us. Germany has undergone huge economic turbulence
because of reunification with East Germany. Three per cent. of GDP was
transferred from one part of Germany to another. The hon. Lady, if she is
fair minded, will agree that we have not had to deal with such an economic
transfer. Credit should be given to Germany for managing to cope with that.

The hon. Lady seems to imply that there are no data to back up my arguments
comparing United Kingdom and European inequality, but I was quoting from a
detailed article containing plenty of evidence by an academic at Oxford
university. The hon. Lady may contest it if she wishes, but she would have
to do so in as detailed a way as the article, which would not be possible
in an intervention. I am not sure whether she will be able to do it if she
wishes to speak later. The article contains a detailed, worked-out argument
with many references and it cannot be dismissed lightly.

Andrew Glyn concludes :

"But the greater inequality, apart from an appalling human cost,
represented not economic efficiency but the systematic squandering of
economic potentials manifested, for example, by unemployment, by the growth
of low productivity employment encouraged by low pay, and by manufacturing
industry failing to invest while dividends rocketed." Those issues can be
taken up later.

Wages differentials have widened dramatically in Britain, whereas they have
remained constant or have fluctuated only marginally in other European
countries. On many occasions in the House, we have been told about the
tremendously inflated salaries that are paid to people at the top of the
scale while a growth in low income has occurred at the bottom of the scale.
So many examples are already well known, some of which--those involving
chairmen and chief executives of privatised water companies--have hit the
headlines. Only yesterday in The Independent I read yet another couple of
examples. The contract of John Bellak, chairman and chief executive of
Severn Trent Water, was terminated this year, but he received £512,000
in compensation and pension contributions, according to the company's
latest annual report. He also received £226,000 in share options and
£230,000 as company chairman. Bob Thian, chief executive of North West
Water, where some employees face cuts of up to £6,000 a year because
of job restructuring, received £674,000 when he left the company
recently.

Such examples will hardly encourage a belief among

Column 568

people, particularly those on low incomes,
that the Government are committed to wage equality and wage fairness.
Ministers have failed to speak out against such irresponsibility and find
it particularly difficult to speak persuasively against boardroom excesses
which offend the British people's basic sense of fairness.

Many ex-Cabinet Ministers are among the beneficiaries of such decisions :
Lord Tebbit, as Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, privatised
British Telecom and he is now on its board ; Lord Walker, who, as Secretary
of State for Energy, privatised British Gas, is now on its board. There are
many other examples, including Lords Young and Lawson and, indeed, the
former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon
Thames (Mr. Lamont).

In view of that record, it is very difficult for Conservative Members to
speak out against such excesses, but I hope that some of them will do so
because they set a terrible example to the rest of the country, especially
when the Government are so keen to promote wage restraint, although some of
the people at the bottom of the scale need immediate help in the short term
instead of being subject to wage restraint or wage reductions.

At key moments, the Government have appeared deliberately to foster the
growth in inequality. I well remember the public's reaction to the Budget
introduced by Lord Lawson in 1988, which seemed to promote inequality
through the huge tax relief given to people at the top of the scale. The
British people's reaction was hostile. The growth in inequality was bad in
itself, but the Budget was also disastrous economically because it helped
to fuel an inflationary import-led boom and, I believe, bore a great share
of responsibility for the recession into which we plunged before our
European partners. One glaring weakness in the Government's arguments over
the past 15 years is that if deregulation, low wages and poor working
conditions are prerequisites for economic success, how was it that, after
10 years of that unpleasant economic medicine, we were the first in Europe
to plunge into a lengthy recession ? That fact is all too frequently
forgotten when Conservative colleagues extol the advantages of a
deregulated, low-wage economy.

There is an extraordinary contradictory belief that giving people at the
top more money will encourage them to work harder, but only by giving
people at the bottom less money will they be encouraged to work harder.
That is a logical absurdity, and one which most people appreciate.

The Government still appear to believe that the trickle-down theory works
and that if the majority of people are better off, it will automatically
help those at the bottom. However, the theory has been shown not to work.
During the United States presidential campaign, when people fortunately
recognised that the theory did not work, trickle-down economics were
described as "voodoo economics". I refer the House to another article by
Andrew Glyn of Corpus Christi college, which also appeared in the national
press. It was entitled

"Why an unequal Britain is paying the price for the efficiency' fallacy".

It is an important article which disproves the link between low pay and
economic success. It refers to the fact that, across the industrialised
countries as a whole, there is no macro-economic evidence to support the
argument that greater equality is detrimental to efficiency. If anything,
the article says, the opposite is true. It states :

Column 569

"The fastest growing economies in the 1980s
were also the more equal societies. We all pay for inequality--in higher
taxes, poor health and high crime. From education to inheritance, from
cradle to grave, inequality is a burden we cannot afford. . . . The problem
is that while the medicine of inequality has been applied, the disease of
economic underperformance has got worse."

Growth under this Government since 1979 was lower than that achieved under
Labour in the 1970s.

Andrew Glyn's arguments are very telling. That we all pay for inequality is
proved by the fact that so many people who are in work but on exceedingly
low incomes can make ends meet only by getting support from the state. The
state recognises that, but we all have to foot a substantial bill because
many employers pay such low wages. In the end, therefore, such policies are
self-defeating, or even worse. It is absurd to continue to peddle the
belief that Britain can compete only through deregulation and that cutting
wages and removing social protection will enable us to compete on cost with
low-wage economies such as China and India. I do not believe that such
crude deregulation is the way to deliver a high-wage, high-skill economy,
which is what I hope that we all want. Slashing prices by cutting wages,
training and investment may appear to deliver some kind of short-term
advantage, but only at the cost of long-term economic and social decline.
Our economy has been described, rightly, as a "closing down sale in a
bargain basement".

The United Kingdom is in danger of having the worst of both worlds--the
worst of the high levels of unemployment currently to be found in Europe,
but also the worst of the US-style low-wage employment and rising in-work
poverty, which is why I believe the problem of inequality is so severe
today.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cirencester and Tewkesbury) : The hon.
Lady has tried to paint a dismal picture of this country's performance over
the past 15 years and has produced a great many statistics to try to back
up her argument. Surely, however, the real measure of success is the number
of consumer goods that people have in their homes. Why is it that in 1979
only 39 per cent. of the bottom decile--or 10 per cent.--of the population
had central heating, which is generally regarded pretty much as a bare
necessity, whereas today a very respectable 69 per cent. of that bottom 10
per cent. has it ?

Ms Quin : I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman refers to heating
in a debate on inequality, especially when the Government's decision

Mr. Clifton-Brown : Answer the question.

Mr. Streeter : Answer the question.

Ms Quin : It is true that many homes have central heating and regard
it as a basic necessity, but I refer both hon. Gentlemen to the fact that,
since the Government imposed value added tax on domestic fuel, many people
can hardly afford to run their heating systems. If they would care to come
to my constituency surgeries and listen to those who cannot pay their fuel
bills, they might not take refuge in average figures. The Government's
decision to charge VAT on domestic heating has a much worse effect in the
less warm parts of the country. In my experience, the people who have most
difficulty with heating bills tend to live in poorer, draughty
accommodation, which makes the problem even worse. In some parts of the
country, people

Column 570

have to have their heating on for almost all
the year, or certainly for nine months at the very least. No matter how
many times hon. Members care to take refuge in average figures, I can
assure them that there is an enormous problem in the country as a whole
because people cannot afford to run their heating systems.

Lady Olga Maitland : Does the hon. Lady accept, first, that fuel
costs have been reduced because of privatisation and, secondly, that
pensioners have had an increase written into their new pension rates for
VAT on fuel ?

Ms Quin : As the hon. Lady knows, the Opposition were keen to ensure
that the measures taken to help pensioners and those on benefit should be
as generous as possible. We do not think that they are. I am sure that the
hon. Lady understands that there is also a real problem for those who are
above benefit level but who are still badly off, such as the people I have
described today who live on low incomes and who find it extremely difficult
to meet any increases in fuel costs. I should like the Government to do a
great deal more than they have done in creating jobs in energy efficiency
and in ensuring that so many of the draughty homes which are lived in by
some of the poorest in the land are made much more energy efficient. That
would mean that those people would not have to fork out the large amounts
that they are trying to find at present.

Mr. Clifton-Brown : I am sure, therefore, that the hon. Lady will
give a warm welcome to my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's
Budget in which he doubled the home energy efficiency scheme to help
precisely the people whom the hon. Lady is describing--the poorest and
pensioners who live in low

energy-efficient households.

Ms Quin : I welcome any change, but I believe that the measures do
not really meet the scale of the problem. Until they do, and until I no
longer come across constituents who face the problems of high fuel bills in
draughty accommodation, I will continue to raise the issues I am raising
today.

The growth in unemployment and in long-term unemployment have contributed
to real social divisions. I come from a part of the country where, at one
time, a few staple industries provided employment for the majority of the
working population in the area. Many of those industries have collapsed
since 1979, particularly in the first recession which we experienced from
1980 to 1983. Although there was a kind of boom, a rather inflationary
boom, after 1983, many parts of the country did not really benefit from
that upturn in the economy. I refer particularly to the areas that were
dependent on the older staple industries and where, although some new
industries have come in--I strongly welcome that--there have not been
enough new industries to take up the slack in employment opportunities. In
certain estates and certain urban areas, the majority of people have been
out of work for 10 years or more. Children are growing up in households
where there is no experience of employment. That is deeply worrying. It has
contributed to the growth of what we call the underclass--an unpleasant
term in itself. That lack of employment has contributed to the growth of
certain types of crime. Before Conservative Members jump up and ask whether
I am saying that the unemployed are criminals, I say that the answer firmly
is no. I see too many unemployed people

Column 571

who are the victims of crime rather than the
perpetrators of crime. However, we all know that where there are deep
social divisions, where there is high unemployment and where there is a
growth in inequality, as can be seen in many countries across the world,
one has a society in which, unfortunately, certain types of crime, such as
theft and car crime, tend to flourish.

Lady Olga Maitland : Does not the hon. Lady agree that, far from
people committing crimes because of poverty, crime is often related to
factors such as greed and trying to fuel a drugs habit ?

Ms Quin : The salaries and pay-offs to which I referred earlier
illustrate the concept of greed rather more than do my comments about the
least well-off in society. Although Conservative Members are always
resistant to the idea of there being a link between crime and social
divisions, that view is, fortunately, not universal. I remember reading a
speech by Baroness Denton in which she said that there was a clear link
between social division, social decay and crime levels. I welcome the fact
that some Conservatives are prepared to look at the issues as they are
rather than as they would like them to be.

An unequal society in which there are gross inequalities of income
distribution generates ill-health, not just for the people who are least
well off. As has been proved in various studies--I refer to the article by
Richard Wilkinson--unequal societies are often more conflictual and more
stressful societies. That adds up to a considerable cost to the health
system.

It is depressing, but not surprising, that Britain has increasingly
suffered from many of the American-style social problems that accompanied
the rise in wage inequality in that country. We have rising drug-related
crime and rising lawlessness in our inner cities, infant mortality rates
higher than those in comparable countries and more spending on ill-health
and crime prevention as a result. All those issues need to be taken very
seriously.

I am not surprised that one or two hon. Members who have intervened have
implied that I have been talking on a gloom-and-doom basis. I am rather
surprised that no one has yet used the time-honoured words, which
Conservatives so often like to use about the Opposition, that I am talking
Britain down. I do not believe in talking Britain down, but I believe in
looking the problem in the face. The problem is not that we are talking
Britain down, but that the Government are letting Britain down. They are
letting the people of Britain down by their actions and by the way in which
they have allowed inequality to grow in the past decade and during the
whole time in which they have been in office.

Recent decisions have made things worse. The Government's decision to
abolish the wages councils, for example, has reduced wages in various
sectors. The Low Pay Network, in a fairly detailed study accompanied by a
survey, concludes that the abolition of the wages councils has resulted in
a substantial drop in pay rates across various sectors of the economy. The
study refers to the retail sector, hairdressing, the clothing industry and
the hotel and catering industry. The Government must pay particular
attention to that study if they are to do something about the problem of
low pay.

Lady Olga Maitland : Will the hon. Lady give way ?

Column 572

Mr. Roger Evans (Monmouth) : Will the hon. Lady give way ?

Ms Quin : I will not give way again to the hon. Member for Sutton
and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland). I have given way to her on four or five
occasions. She seems to be a regular attender of Friday morning debates so
she will, I am sure, hope to speak herself. In view of the number of
interventions by the hon. Lady and the possibility, if she catches your
eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, of her being able to make a speech, she will
have ample opportunity to make her views heard.

Mr. Roger Evans : The hon. Lady has strikingly referred to her area
as having once had a number of staple industries which provided a lot of
employment. She said that they had declined and that they had been
replaced, but not adequately. Can she explain to me, in terms of her
motion, how what she is recommending would do anything to promote economic
prosperity and more jobs for her region ? What is the link ?

Ms Quin : I am glad that the hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. Evans)
made that intervention. I am coming to those points shortly. I have
referred to VAT on fuel, so I shall not make further reference to it. I
also referred briefly to the Child Support Agency. After we had our debate
on Monday, a constituent came to my constituency office. He is an example
of a classic case in which the CSA has simply proved to be the straw that
breaks the camel's back. I implore the Government, therefore--we have here
today the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt), who is the Under-
Secretary of State for Social Security with special responsibility for the
CSA--to listen to all the cases that we have brought to their attention and
to realise that we are talking not about an isolated number of cases, but
about a huge number of cases in which people really feel that the CSA is
the last economic straw that they can bear. I am not surprised that not
only have there been suicides, but many people have felt suicidal as a
result, including a constituent who came to my office this week. He would
want his case to be referred to as one that shows the kind of hardship that
the CSA creates.

Inequality affects many different groups in Britain today. Inequality
affecting the disabled has exercised the attention of the House on many
occasions in recent weeks and it is possible that other hon. Members will
want to refer to that issue again today. I repeat the frequent demands of
Labour Members that the Government accept the private Member's Bill, the
Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill, currently before the House, that they
do not block it further and that they give the disabled, who have been
subject to gross inequalities over a long time, some hope of opportunity
for the future.

There is also gross inequality between women's and men's average incomes,
as I am sure all hon. Members recognise. That is especially true of many
women in part-time and poorly paid jobs. Indeed, surveys show that if we
continue moving towards equality for women's pay at such a slow rate, we
shall almost be near the beginning of the 22nd century before it catches up
with the average pay for men. I have also referred to the difficulties that
men encounter in areas of the country such as mine. Indeed, in the
intervention by the hon. Member for Monmouth,

Column 573

reference was made to the fact that not
enough new industries have replaced the older industries, which have
declined in areas such as mine.

It is interesting to consider some of the industries that have come to the
north-east, especially Nissan in Sunderland, which is close to my
constituency. It has brought some welcome jobs to the area and I am
encouraged by the fact that the management of Nissan do not accept the
deregulated, low-wage approach of the Government. Indeed, in evidence to
the Select Committee on Employment, Nissan said clearly that it believed
that the low-wage, low-skill approach to the economy was the route to
economic disaster. It is also greatly encouraging that Nissan believes that
the provisions of the European social chapter would not present it with any
difficulties, because, in all cases, it already exceeds its provisions.

There is a great deal of hidden employment as well, especially in an area
such as mine. Many women would like to work, but do not register as
unemployed because either they do not have the possibility of working, due
to lack of child-care facilities or being unable to afford those
facilities, or because they live in areas of high unemployment and the
chances of employment are so poor that it is not worth registering.

Let me also refer to the discrimination and inequality experienced by
people from ethnic minorities. It remains true that wages and unemployment
rates among members of ethnic minorities are highly unequal. Unemployment
rates for ethnic minorities are more than twice the rate of the white
population and the wages of some minority groups are persistently lower. We
must look at that problem closely. I imagine that Conservative Members may
well say that we must aim for flexibility of work. I strongly support
flexibility in the workplace, as do many Labour Members, but we do not
support the situation where flexible working practices--part-time working
and so on--amount to a lifetime of penalty rather than a lifetime of
opportunity. In the right circumstances, flexible working, part-time
working and different work patterns can be a tremendous opportunity for
people, but, all too often, especially in the constituency cases with which
I have dealt, people in such new employment patterns seem to be badly paid.
Indeed, they are not only badly paid, but, as I said earlier, have few
pension rights and entitlements and little financial security to look
forward to.

What should be done about this situation ? One of the most important things
to do is simply to recognise the extent of the problem. There is a real
problem in Government circles of people failing to appreciate the scale of
the difficulties that are experienced by people out there, across the whole
country. I well remember an impressive report prepared by the Church of
England entitled "Faith in the City". It was greeted by the then Prime
Minister as Marxist and its contents were dismissed. I believe strongly
that those working in churches are in an excellent position to experience
the extent of the problems of inequality in our society because they tend
to be based in inner-city areas where they encounter such problems at first
hand. It is not only a few turbulent priests in the Church of England who
are criticising Government policies in that respect. Recently, the new
president of the Methodist Church made

Column 574

similar comments, as have members of the
senior establishment of the Catholic Church. It is such a common pattern
that it cannot be dismissed as the rantings and ravings of a few
ideologically motivated clerics.

We also need a much bigger job creation package than anything we have seen
up to now. [Interruption.] Indeed, it was extremely welcome that,
after 10 years of saying nothing about full employment, we managed to get
some kind of commitment to it from Ministers. That was a welcome change and
we had not heard it for a long time from the Government. My hon. Friend the
Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) has, for example, called for a new
environmental task force for young people which could combine training with
environmentally based community projects.

I feel strongly about jobs in the environment. An enormous number of jobs
can be created in environmentally related projects, partly in tackling
pollution. It is sad that, despite the fact that the Government gave the
privatised water companies a green dowry at the time of privatisation to
bring our water standards up to European Community standards, there has
been a failure to spend that money to bring the water quality up to the
required standards as quickly as we would like and, more astonishingly, we
have seen an attempt by the Government to repeal the European quality
standards which they gave the privatised companies money to meet.

Lady Olga Maitland rose

Ms Quin : I am sure that the hon. Lady will have an opportunity to
speak later.

Therefore, jobs in energy-saving projects and jobs in producing
environmental technological equipment are also important. One of the areas
in which Britain is failing to create jobs is in trade with the newly
democratic countries of central and eastern Europe. Trading between those
countries and our country is miles behind the volume of trade that the
Germans, the French, the Italians and even the Dutch have managed to build
up with those new countries. One important area of work would be in helping
those countries, in a kind of trade and aid package, to meet some of the
higher environmental standards which they need to meet in future.

One almost needs an environmental Marshall aid plan to tackle some of the
problems in those countries. Such measures could create jobs in Britain
because, as we know, many firms are capable of producing environmentally
friendly equipment, such as equipment to curb emissions from power
stations. Government Departments, especially the Departments of Employment
and of Trade and Industry and, perhaps, also the Foreign and Commonwealth
Office, should look at that area together much more closely than they seem
to have done.

We must make fairness the central principle and guiding light of social
security and tax policy. The Labour party is committed to progressive
taxation, which is important for the future. [Interruption.] We need
a fairer tax system so that we can bring an end to pensioner poverty and
discrimination and improve public services. It is-- [Interruption.]
I hear the cries that are so frequently emitted during debates of this
sort.

Mr. Nicholls : How much ?

Ms Quin : Exactly. Conservative Members want to know exactly how
much money is involved, as if I, in

Column 575

introducing a Back-Bench motion, could give
a detailed account of a Labour Government's first Budget. Conservative
Members know that such an expectation would be entirely unrealistic. I
shall not get worked up about that.

Mr. Roger Evans : Will the hon. Lady give way ?

Ms Quin : I merely say

Mr. Nicholls : Just answer the question.

Madam Deputy Speaker : Order. Seated interventions are not helpful.
If the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene, he should do so in the proper
way.

Ms Quin : Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I have given way on
many occasions, it is rather difficult to put up with so many seated
interventions. I have extended to hon. Members the courtesy of allowing
them to intervene. I am anxious to bring my remarks to a close.

It is extraordinary that Conservative Members should ask where the money is
to come from. When the Government took office, they enjoyed a tremendous
windfall from North sea oil. Previous Governments had not received such
revenue and did not expect it. None of us knew that that would happen. The
Government have had huge opportunities, especially when they ran tremendous
Budget surpluses--they have been frittered away--to put into effect many of
the measures that we are calling for 15 years later. There have been 15
years of wasted opportunity when money was available. That is extremely
frustrating for those of us who have been putting forward the policies that
I have outlined for so many years. It is absurd for Conservative Members to
talk about money not being available when they had money and failed to use
it to tackle the problems that I am describing. Indeed, they have presided
over a period when the problems have become much worse.

I have talked about the problem of poverty and work, low pay and poor
working conditions. I admit, however, that there have been some
improvements over the past two or three years. Almost all these
improvements have come about because of commitments arising from European
directives. There are European directives that give employees the right to
a written statement setting out their terms and conditions. Although the
Government tried to water down the directive on maternity rights, it has
helped some women at work in Britain. There was the recent and very welcome
court judgment that the Government's policy towards part-time workers
unfairly discriminated against women. Some of the extraordinary and glaring
inequalities that faced part-time workers must now be redressed. Those are
three examples of improvements that have been made or are being made. That
has happened or is happening because of our European commitments.

It is no coincidence that the Government, having been forced to sign
directives and, having failed to implement them, want to escape from the
European social commitment so that, presumably, they will not be forced to
introduce modest improvements in future. That is a disgrace.